Umm ... "hipster nonsense"? Really? Is that the best that one can write in response to the cause ... any cause?

Not being a "hipster" myself—my days in hipsterdom are long forgotten along with tie-dyed jeans, graduated-tinted sunglasses, body shirts and shark's tooth pendants—I am delighted to read that Open Source Matters Inc. has proclaimed its stance on net neutrality.

I agree that OSM doesn't speak for everyone. By the same token, the FCC and the guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue don't speak for me, either.

I support OSM in this cause.

https://www.kuneze.com/blogFormer member of Kunena project teamIf you think I’m wrong then say “I think you're wrong.” If you say “You’re wrong!”, how do you know?

The idea that the internet is going to be a "fair" place because of Net Neutrality is a joke. Even the FCC chief under Obama didn't like it. Net Neutrality is a problem in search of a problem. Large corporations have always paid for preferential connections to major ISPs. The current rules don't change anything, and in some cases they enable corporations to misbehave. Case-in-point: Twitter - who espouses openness while it bans conservatives from its platform and allows liberals to openly call for murder.

From my decade+ as the network administrator for an ISP, I can say with confidence that blocking services to your customers will cause them to go elsewhere. My boss demanded that I block all BitTorrent traffic - that lasted only 2 days before I was asked to allow it again. The backlash was incredible. If ISPs want to engage in shenanigans - their competitors will benefit. Free market baby!

Net Neutrality was supposed to cover a multitude of issues - but most still occur, because of (I believe) political donations. If you're a big enough donor - the laws don't apply to you.

It was supposed to:
1. protect lawful content from provider censorship - but that occurs all the time. The excuse is (usually) - they *could* use this service illegally or the content the posted *might* be illegal, so we blocked them...just in case.

2. prevent service throttling - My ISP offers a premium service that "speeds up" streaming video. So, they've slowed it down and offered me the option of paying to speed it back up.

3. prevent prioritization - except, big corporations like Google pay for priority on large networks....it's capitalism. It existed before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and it will exist after Net Neutrality.

1. In practice it may not work but are you objecting to the principle ?
2. Again in practice it may not work but are you objecting to the principle ?
3. There have been a few court cases about that. It may have existed before Net Neutrality and may still exist.

But surely Net Neutrality is attempting to prevent (or at least curb) it. Are you against the effort because you think the concept of Net Neutrality is wrong or because you think it is futile ?

Personally I think it is near futile but I do not object to the attempt to 'stem the tide'.

The government is rarely capable, and never efficient. Net Neutrality has done nothing to make the internet better. It's become a destination for public funds to be gobbled up by ineffective regulators who cry for.....more regulations (read - more money).

When an ISP engages in shenanigans, their customers will go elsewhere.

I currently have no choice about providers, but that will change in a few months.